Sandhill Crane

[paul o' vendange]

Paul -- please clarify something for us. I doubt you intend to contradict yourself, so I think there must be something left out. I am quoting only two sentences because the intervening ones did not seem to qualitfy either of these, but I may be missing something.

First you wrote,

I vociferously protect the act of hunting for food.

Then you wrote,

Unless there is something unique about the sandhill crane's meat, bones or fat I don't know about, I cannot see any justification for taking one down.

You appear to be taking your first statement back with the second statement. Would not "hunting for food" justify killing a sandhill crane? Why would there need to be something unique about its meat, bones or fat? Or are you applying that standard to duck, goose, quail, dove, squirrel, pig, deer, elk, etc., too? How do you decide?

This is a topic of interest to me that people from at least a half dozen different positions can have very strong feelings, so I am trying to go to some lengths to say that I am interested primarily in understanding other's thinking about taking game animals and birds for food.

←

Richard, yes - hunting for food would justify killing a sandhill crane, provided it is not an endangered species. As to my statements, I would say the latter statement fulfills the former. Let me clarify:

I kill only that which I intend to eat. I can legally kill a host of animals. I do not desire to eat a host of animals ('possum, for instance), therefore I would not kill those same animals, much as I would not choose alligator earlobes at a restaurant, although they may be available. And if I would not consciously seek out the flesh of a sandhill crane because I specifically desire it (the meat, etc.), I am loathe to kill it. Lots of other things I enjoy to eat, my family enjoys eating.

More to the point: I thoroughly enjoy the meat, stock, and whatever else I can exploit of venison, certain species of waterfowl, and a good many field birds. Now, perhaps I have made a terrible leap of pre-judgment here, but is the sandhill crane so desirable for its intrinsic culinary qualities as to warrant its death? I don't believe the Crane is crucial to the survival of any one in this discussion, and so I admit it cries somewhat to me of what I abhore among a good many of my hunting confreres - sheer and utter ego, trophy hunting.

But I admit I may be shortsighted and if sandhill Crane hunters just can't wait to make that Crane fricasee, then godspeed.

Paul

[Richard Kilgore]

Now, perhaps I have made a terrible leap of pre-judgment here, but is the sandhill crane so desirable for its intrinsic culinary qualities as to warrant its death? I don't believe the Crane is crucial to the survival of any one in this discussion, and so I admit it cries somewhat to me of what I abhore among a good many of my hunting confreres - sheer and utter ego, trophy hunting.

Okay, thanks, that helps clarify your position. You appear to qualify the "hunting for food" by requiring it to have some special culinary quality. I have never tasted any of the subspecies of sandhill crane, so I am in no position to say, for example, "It tastes like grouse, but is more tender and sublime." But what is your requirement --that it taste different than another bird, that it taste better than another bird, or that it simply taste good? Part of the issue may be that few people hunt sandhill crane, so few people taste sandhill crane. And Sandhill Crane, as far as I know, does not have a major constituency among hunters -- no Sandhill Crane Unlimited, no Sandhill Crane Society. So they are not going to benefit from expanding populations as turkey and deer have due to hunting lobbies and conservation organizations.

Another ambiguity in your position that perhaps you could clarify: While the Sandhill Crane is certainly not crucial to the survival of anyone in the U.S., not to mention just this discussion, neither, for the most part, are any game birds and animals. Most people hunt them because they they enjoy the experience of the hunt, as well as enjoy eating what they kill. The vast majority of people who hunt could much less expensively go to the grocery store for their meat. I understand that you object to trophy hunting and why, but nonetheless I think I am missing part of your point again. Can you shed any light?

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your view here.

[paul o' vendange]

"Another ambiguity in your position that perhaps you could clarify: While the Sandhill Crane is certainly not crucial to the survival of anyone in the U.S., not to mention just this discussion, neither, for the most part, are any game birds and animals. Most people hunt them because they they enjoy the experience of the hunt, as well as enjoy eating what they kill. The vast majority of people who hunt could much less expensively go to the grocery store for their meat. I understand that you object to trophy hunting and why, but nonetheless I think I am missing part of your point again. Can you shed any light?

..."

Richard, precisely my point: in the absence of the need to hunt to survive, why hunt? You mention two, and I believe you herein restate my position(s):

"Most people hunt them because they they enjoy the experience of the hunt, as well as enjoy eating what they kill."

I abhore hunting for "the sheer enjoyment of the hunt;" it dishonors the life taken. And unless I enjoy eating the animal, I don't want to hunt it. But I support hunting, in the absence of the need to do it to survive, where I both tap some primal memory, and enjoy, specifically enjoy, the flesh, etc., of the animal I kill. I restate my position: is the Sandhill Crane so desirable to eat? If so, no argument, provided it is not in danger of being hunted out of existence; if not, aren't there other quarry?

Paul

Edited December 1, 2004 by paul o' vendange (log)

[Richard Kilgore]

"Another ambiguity in your position that perhaps you could clarify: While the Sandhill Crane is certainly not crucial to the survival of anyone in the U.S., not to mention just this discussion, neither, for the most part, are any game birds and animals. Most people hunt them because they they enjoy the experience of the hunt, as well as enjoy eating what they kill. The vast majority of people who hunt could much less expensively go to the grocery store for their meat. I understand that you object to trophy hunting and why, but nonetheless I think I am missing part of your point again. Can you shed any light?

..."

Richard, precisely my point:  in the absence of the need to hunt to survive, why hunt?  You mention two, and I believe you herein restate my position(s): 

"Most people hunt them because they they enjoy the experience of the hunt, as well as enjoy eating what they kill."

I abhore hunting for "the sheer enjoyment of the hunt;" it dishonors the life taken.  And unless I enjoy eating the animal, I don't want to hunt it.

But I support hunting, in the absence of the need to do it to survive, where I both tap some primal memory, and enjoy, specifically enjoy, the flesh, etc., of the animal I kill. I restate my position: is the Sandhill Crane so desirable to eat? If so, no argument, provided it is not in danger of being hunted out of existence; if not, aren't there other quarry?

Paul

←

Thanks, Paul.

But I support hunting, in the absence of the need to do it to survive, where I both tap some primal memory, and enjoy, specifically enjoy, the flesh, etc., of the animal I kill.  I restate my position:  is the Sandhill Crane so desirable to eat? 

So, unless I am misconstruing something, your requirement is simply that you enjoy the hunt (the primal experience) and eating the flesh (tastes good to you), and that it not be an endangered species. And in the case of the Sandhill Crane, the only subspecies that is listed as Endangered by the U.S. government, is the Mississippi Sandhill Crane, though the various state governments have hunting regulations that apply, so if I may assume that you also advocate adhering to fish and game laws and after due diligence do not see the subspecies available to you as endangered whether or not the federal or state government does, the remaining issue is:

I restate my position:  is the Sandhill Crane so desirable to eat?

How would you know if it tastes good (another assumption of mine that desireable=good, but not necessarily unique, better than, different than) to you? You are not going to order it in a restaurant to sample it. Would you have to hunt and eat it to find out? Would it be acceptable to eat a bird that someone else hunted? Or a positive report by a friend or a noted game bird authority or cook? And how would you make a decision as to whether you even wanted to find out what it tastes like?

[paul o' vendange]

"How would you know if it tastes good (another assumption of mine that desireable=good, but not necessarily unique, better than, different than) to you? You are not going to order it in a restaurant to sample it. Would you have to hunt and eat it to find out? Would it be acceptable to eat a bird that someone else hunted? Or a positive report by a friend or a noted game bird authority or cook? And how would you make a decision as to whether you even wanted to find out what it tastes like?"

Good point, Richard, and one which I have no easy answer for. My bias is clearly showing. With all the game out there to eat, hunting the Crane simply smacks to me of "if it's big, kill it - a big ego boost," and perhaps in this suspicion I am utterly wrong. I suppose my answer to you might be to restate my question to those who hunt the bird, without the filter of bias; sincerely:

Is it desirable to eat?

Paul

[Richard Kilgore]

Thanks again, Paul.

I guess we'll have to wait for someone who has eaten Sandhill Crane to show up. And that may be unlikely, unless irodguy has the opportunity, due to the small number of sandhill cranes killed by hunters.

A 2003-2004 US Fish & Wildlife Dept. survey of nine central flyway states shows an estimated 18,335 cranes harvested by an estimated 8,335 hunters. Compare those figures to about one million Mallard ducks harvested in the central flyway and 2.5 million in the Mississippi flyway.

The fact is that there is very little interest anywhere in hunting sandhill cranes.

[Richard Kilgore]

Quite a leap in logic that someone shooting a legal gamebird is going to deprive you of the beauty of the sandhill migration.

←

Legal is a function of location, and humans have been known to hunt things to extinction in the past. Pretty small leap in logic.

←

Yes and no. Perhaps a leap in centuries involved here. There was over-hunting to extinction of some birds by commercial market hunters in the 19th century, and deer populations were down to about 200,000 in the US at the turn of the century. It was primarily the national hunting magazines and hunting organizations that did the education and lobbying necessary to turning that around.

The primary threat to most game and non-game wildlife at this point in history is habitat loss to us humans.

[dano1]

Now that being said he is a bubba with lots of fire power, but a considerate bubba who eats what he shoots. 

←

dang, ah guess am a bubba too......makes me feel proud

dano

[Richard Kilgore]

A google search turned up

Sandhill Crane with Apples, which could be modified into something with potential. It also has a crane chili recipe for the remainders.

[Richard Kilgore]

Speaking to the effects of us humans on cranes, here is an interesting Nature Conservancy report on central California valley agricultural effects on sandhill cranes in the Pacific flyway that indicates modifying the way we grow crops for human consumption can benefit these migratory birds. It's description of the different migratory routes of the lesser and greater sandhill cranes also points to the many differences between subspecies and the various migratory flyways.

Is this the preserve, or near the preserve, you were referring to, Rancho Gordo?

[Greg K]

Sandhill Crane is also known as "Flying roast beef" by those in the know.

And here is a note for all the anti's out there. Hunters are responsible for bringing the populations of wildlife to their current all time high numbers. Not conservationists, not greenpeace, not the liberals, not PETA - HUNTERS. These same HUNTERS are the supporters of organizations like Ducks Unlimited, The National Wild Turkey Foundation, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, et al.

Sandhills are fair game in certain states and Canadian provinces, what's the problem? I adhere strongly to the theory of only taking game animals for the table. If you are not going to eat it, don't harvest the resource.

OK I'm off of my soapbox now, sorry for the rant.